Case law

Curley v. Klem

298 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

If a court concludes that an officer's conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, then it must deny him the protection afforded by qualified immunity. … immunity issues early in the litigation is in tension with the reality that factual disputes often need to be resolved before determining whether the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right

Foy v. Holston

94 F.3d 1528 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1996

whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.") … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal rights allegedly violated were clearly established. See Barts v.

Valladares v. Cordero

552 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 12, 2009

Thus, this Court has appellate jurisdiction to con- sider appeals from denials of qualified immunity only "to the extent that the official maintains that the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law." … Appellant’s appeal is limited to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether a reasonable officer would have known that his actions violated a clearly estab- lished right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Anderson v. Roberts

823 F.2d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 1987

In Wright, there was no question that the law clearly established certain constitutional rights. … Thus, Sheriff Bolin is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University

28 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1994

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established.” Barts, 865 F.2d at 1190 (citing Mitchell v.

Ed Knox, an Individual v. Southwest Airlines, a Texas Corporation, and David Swafford Robert Hopper City of Phoenix, a Municipality

124 F.3d 1103 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 1997

immunity-typically, the issue whether a federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established. … Merits of Qualified Immunity Decision To determine whether qualified immunity is appropriate, a court must identify the specific right allegedly violated and determine “whether that right was so clearly established as to

Sack v. St. Francis Hosp.

989 F.2d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 1993

Sack's complaint, finding that Officer Lowder was entitled to qualified immunity: 10 "[I]t cannot be said that defendant Lowder violated the clearly established rights of plaintiff. … Sack's clearly established statutory or Constitutional rights and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Brown v. Nationsbank Corp.

188 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 1999

engaged in conduct that violated the clearly- established law.” … Qualified immunity Although neither the pleadings, the district court’s order nor the briefs develop the analysis, it is obvious that defendants have a qualified immunity defense to the Bivens claims.

Jonas Magnotti v. Walter J. Kuntz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer in the Police Department of New Haven, Ct

918 F.2d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 8, 1990

Even where the permissible scope of activity is clearly defined, the qualified immunity defense protects an official if it was “objectively reasonable” for him to believe his acts were lawful. See Anderson v. … But, well-established principles instruct that qualified immunity is appropriate if the affidavit accompanying the warrant is sufficient, after correcting for material misstatements or omissions, to support a reasonable officer

Hudgins v. City of Ashburn

890 F.2d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 13, 1989

Harlow and Rich instruct that a summary-judgment motion based on qualified immunity also may require determining the applicable law before ascertaining whether or not that law is clearly established. … Rich recognizes two instances where qualified immunity is accorded to government officials: 1) when the law that they allegedly violated is not clearly established, see, e.g., Clark, 840 F.2d at 882-84 ; Muhammad v.

Cantu v. Rocha

77 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 28, 1996

Ct. 2727, 2738 (1982) (whether an official is entitled to qualified 17 immunity depends on the "objective legal reasonableness" of the official's action as measured by clearly established … CONCLUSION Defendants Rocha and Salazar are entitled to qualified immunity from Cantu's federal law claims because Cantu failed to alleged violation of a clearly established federal right.

Silsby v. Foote

55 U.S. 218 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 11, 1853

Perez Ex Rel. Estate of Arango v. Suszczynski

809 F.3d 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2016

established law, thus entitling him to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officers engaged in discretionary functions from civil liability only if the officers’ actions do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Charles Jackson v. City of Cleveland

64 F.4th 736 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 2023

clearly established law.” … Clearly Established Law We next consider the second prong of qualified immunity, which asks whether the right that has been violated was clearly established, meaning that “every ‘reasonable official would  No. 22

Roosevelt-Hennix v. Prickett

717 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 16, 2013

Roosevelt-Hennix argues that under this set of facts, the one this court must assume for purposes of review of a summary-judgment based denial of qualified immunity, Prickett’s use of the taser violated her clearly established … Put simply, Prickett’s arguments as to both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis—the existence of a constitutional violation that is clearly established—depend entirely on the assertion Roosevelt-Hennix actively resisted

Kelley Bagby v. Steve Brondhaver

98 F.3d 1096 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 28, 1996

Deputy sheriff Steve Brondhaver appeals an order denying his motion for a qualified immunity dismissal of Kelly Bagby’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. … Brondhaver is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Bruce v. Beary

498 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 6, 2007

officers are entitled to qualified immunity only if the law regarding the proper scope of administrative searches was not clearly established at the time the search was conducted. … We also hold that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from this lawsuit.

Scott Hernandez v. Town of Gilbert

989 F.3d 739 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2021

immunity where the law was clearly established, but the officer’s conduct was not objectively reasonable. … IV Because Hernandez cannot identify a violation of any “clearly established” right, Officer Gilbert is entitled to qualified immunity.

Akeem Washington v. Shannon Rivera

939 F.3d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2019

But we conclude that Rivera’s actions did not violate Washington’s clearly established rights, and that she is thus entitled to qualified immunity. … a clearly established right.

Ross v. Correction Officers John & Jane Does 1-5

610 F. App'x 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 20, 2015

Accordingly, defendant Mullings is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because our focus, in analyzing whether qual *77 ified immunity applies, is on whether the right asserted by Ross was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we need not address Kingsley's possible implications